The only possible experience I may have had with reincarnation was a story my wife told me. Years ago, before we were together, my wife and her aunt and uncle went on a trip to England and Ireland. In Ireland they were strolling down a street, my wife says outloud "Oh yeah, turn down this alley coming up and theres a small theater down there." Sure enough, they get to the alley, and there's a small theater down at the end of it.
Now this was before the internet, and before the Travel Channel and things like that, so I doubt there would have been a way for her to know about the theater. My wife is half Irish and Scottish, so who knows. Could it be a left-over memory from a previous incarnation? Might she have been an actress at that theater? I do have to wonder about that story.

Our individual responses to this phenomenon reflect our own individual interests. You are evidently interested in the personal and historical aspects of the phenomenon; I am interested in the mechanisms and processes of how these phenomena occur, and the content is really of only passing interest to me.

This is significant because it influences our perceptions of the events, and our explanations.

It has been my experience when investigating similar events that the entity always is very vocal and effusive in "talking" about events and things that are either known to, or accessable to, or of emotional importance to the "human" participants.

Any information conveyed invariably feeds the interests and predispositons of the human participants, with a preference to the ephemeral.

Whenever specific questions are asked about technical issues, or things that are not known or not quickly ascertainable by the "humans" directly involved, the entity invariably responds with evasiveness or attempts to deflect the question. If you persist with the question, the entity invariably takes his ball and goes off in a huff.

I have been involved in several investigations in which the entity has refused to play unless I was excluded from the investigation. So much for my winning personality.

My interpretation of this is that entities of this nature are the creation of the minds of the participants, and is therefore incapable of knowing or doing anything that is not correspondingly within the realm of the human participants.

Consequently, I am confident that if you were to ask your guy if he wants to talk to me, he will refuse, and give some creative excuses as to why it is not possible.

These are the reasons for my being so focussed on being able to isolate the humans from the spooks in the attempt to replicate the "Phillip" experiment. (Which has ground to a halt.)

Of course, if what I am speculating is correct, that opens a whole new ballgame and raises a whole host of questions.

If these entities really are the creations of the minds of the people involved, this would be far more interesting that something as mundane as someone's dead granny who is hanging out in the kitchen.

I see your point about how if you can’t get information beyond what the living person would know that it may be because the entity is a construct of their own mind. If there were no other evidence of ghosts in terms of evps, photographic, and other physical documentation, I would agree that ghosts are just the products of peoples’ imaginations.

I also think that theory leaves out any consideration that ghosts are still just people with the same span of motivations and interests that living people have. You are having enough trouble finding living people who have the same focus you do to work on this Phillip-esque project with you. Why expect that to be any different in dealing with dead people, especially keeping in mind that you deal with far fewer of them?

It’s interesting that you say that you tend to be a persona non grata around ghosts. When you do these experiments, how obvious are you about the fact that you are trying to get the ghosts to prove that they exist? If it's obvious, then the response you are getting is also in keeping with human nature. That's kind of like going to a party, walking up to people you don’t know and asking them if they would be willing to stop partying for a bit to take part in an experiment that they probably have no interest in or might even be offended by. In that case, yeah, you are going to get a lot of declines by way of polite but lame excuses or downright hostility. Eventually you might find someone who is game, but you are more likely to get turned down.

Another thing I find puzzling is your earlier concern over the fact that my ghost couldn’t/wouldn’t convey the code word right off the bat. If I asked my husband to pass on a message to someone he talks business with for a couple of minutes a day, it would take him a few days to remember to do that, too. Again, why should the ghost be any different? It’s not like I have any reasonable expectation that proving his existence to me would be the ghost’s highest priority in life (or afterlife as the case may be).

I see your point about how if you can’t get information beyond what the living person would know that it may be because the entity is a construct of their own mind. If there were no other evidence of ghosts in terms of evps, photographic, and other physical documentation, I would agree that ghosts are just the products of peoples’ imaginations.

I also think that theory leaves out any consideration that ghosts are still just people with the same span of motivations and interests that living people have. You are having enough trouble finding living people who have the same focus you do to work on this Phillip-esque project with you. Why expect that to be any different in dealing with dead people, especially keeping in mind that you deal with far fewer of them?

It’s interesting that you say that you tend to be a persona non grata around ghosts. When you do these experiments, how obvious are you about the fact that you are trying to get the ghosts to prove that they exist? If it's obvious, then the response you are getting is also in keeping with human nature. That's kind of like going to a party, walking up to people you don’t know and asking them if they would be willing to stop partying for a bit to take part in an experiment that they probably have no interest in or might even be offended by. In that case, yeah, you are going to get a lot of declines by way of polite but lame excuses or downright hostility. Eventually you might find someone who is game, but you are more likely to get turned down.

Another thing I find puzzling is your earlier concern over the fact that my ghost couldn’t/wouldn’t convey the code word right off the bat. If I asked my husband to pass on a message to someone he talks business with for a couple of minutes a day, it would take him a few days to remember to do that, too. Again, why should the ghost be any different? It’s not like I have any reasonable expectation that proving his existence to me would be the ghost’s highest priority in life (or afterlife as the case may be).

Hi AbbeyGal:

No, from my perspective, the issue is not whether or not "ghosts" and other supernatural phenomena exist; clearly they do. The issues from my viewpoint are: what are they, where are they, and how do they work.

If you read some of my earlier posts you will see that I grew up in a "haunted" house, and experienced all kinds of "supernatural" phenomena both while growing up, and to the present day. In fact, I think I was about 16 before I learned that what our family and I experienced on a daily basis was not "normal".

I am not saying definitively that your current experience is a creation of your own mind. What I am saying is that many of the things you have experienced can be explained in that context. I acknowledge that that explanation may be wrong, but it is consistent with your experiences.

This is where your code word comes into the story. The situation and circumstances of your interaction with your ghost are not "normal", and therefore should not be dealt with as such. Different standards and practices apply to abnormal situations. Both you and the ghost should be clearly aware of that, and behave accordingly.

If it were me, I would have made it explicitly clear to the ghost that it was his top priority to convey this code word to the third party; if he didn't do that, then he could find someone else to play with. Remember, there are two sides to this communication, and both sides need to be served.

Establishment of bona fides and the laying of ground rules is fundamental to any communication, human or ghostly.

Your point about ghosts being "just ordinary people" is well taken. If a person was a boring, illinformed git when he was alive, there is no reason that he should be anything else when he is dead.

It is for this reason that I want to construct an entity, through a "Phillip" type experiment, to a particular personality/intellectual specification; and to be absolutely sure that he is not a creation of the minds of the participants.

Your observation about my being "persona non grata" in Spook City is accurate. It has been my observation that those ghosts that seek out human attention are largely attention seekers who get entertainment value out of performing for the "humans". I find them boring and annoying.

Therefore, I make it perfectly clear that I won't play unless they want to get serious; they get in a snit, I go home, everybody else parties on.

I will keep my fingers crossed that you find a scientifically minded ghost who would love to take part in that kind of experiment.

Hi AbbeyGal:

Thanks for the well wishes, but I’m not holding my breath.

This actually raises a very interesting question, and has relevance to your current experience.

I have noticed that when people have “past life experiences”, a large number of them discover that in their previous lives, they used to be emperors, kings, queens, princesses, great warriors or some other similar noteworthy individual who died performing heroic deeds.

Very rarely, if ever, do they discover that they were a mere peasant toiling in the fields, and died in a ditch after being trampled by a wayward buffalo.

Similarly, of all the apparent ghost/human communications over the years, why is it that not one of them has ever involved a dead scientist?

Do scientists go to a special place from which there is no return? Are dead scientists under some kind of gag order which prevents them from talking?

This is reflected in the nature of communications which do come from ghosts: the content is largely inane philosophical BS, or emotionally charged trivia designed to feed the needs and desires of the recipient.

Contrast this with the conversation you could expect from a dead scientist. Could you imagine the conversation we could have with Richard Feynman, or Carl Sagan, or Linus Pauling? Or with any of the other thousands of brilliant, but dead, scientists?

This all takes us back to the point made previously in this discussion: on the face of it, it seems that situations in which there is direct ghost/human communication are largely creations of the minds of the humans involved. (This is not to say that I have any idea as to how or why this happens; this is a fascinating area in itself.)

On the other hand, there clearly are situations in which ghosts and humans are involved, and in which both parties seem to be acting independently. Case in point: the haunted house in which I grew up.

Bottom line: we know nothing, and with each question, we come up with even more questions. Very frustrating.

I have noticed that when people have “past life experiences”, a large number of them discover that in their previous lives, they used to be emperors, kings, queens, princesses, great warriors or some other similar noteworthy individual who died performing heroic deeds.

Very rarely, if ever, do they discover that they were a mere peasant toiling in the fields, and died in a ditch after being trampled by a wayward buffalo.

The vast majority of the ones I've talked to were actually normal folks in their past lives. Of the few past lives of mine I remember, I was a cripple who tended horses and got beaten to death by some bullies at a young age. In others, I was 17th century housewife who died in childbirth and also a slave in some ancient culture. Hardly the stuff daydreams are made of.

Similarly, of all the apparent ghost/human communications over the years, why is it that not one of them has ever involved a dead scientist?

Because if a scientist were a ghost, he or she wouldn't believe in him/herself.

What percentage of the population throughout history were scientists? And who's to say that a scientist has never communicated with someone? If they were communicating with the average person instead of a paranormal researcher, nothing would come of it, aside from the living person screaming and running away. I think I had heard that one of the inventors of some spirit communication device has been communicating with his succesors since he died.

I have noticed that when people have “past life experiences”, a large number of them discover that in their previous lives, they used to be emperors, kings, queens, princesses, great warriors or some other similar noteworthy individual who died performing heroic deeds.

Very rarely, if ever, do they discover that they were a mere peasant toiling in the fields, and died in a ditch after being trampled by a wayward buffalo.

The vast majority of the ones I've talked to were actually normal folks in their past lives. Of the few past lives of mine I remember, I was a cripple who tended horses and got beaten to death by some bullies at a young age. In others, I was 17th century housewife who died in childbirth and also a slave in some ancient culture. Hardly the stuff daydreams are made of.

Whoops! So much for that theory.

Because if a scientist were a ghost, he or she wouldn't believe in him/herself.

Whoooooa! Low blow! Not all of us scientific types are morons. While it is true that many of us are an embarassment and should be kept locked up behind closed doors, there are some who are safe to be seen in public and can appreciate what is going on in the world around them.

What percentage of the population throughout history were scientists?

In percentage terms, not many. But in volume terms, there are probably a lot. Surely if there were such communication, we would have heard about it?

If they were communicating with the average person instead of a paranormal researcher, nothing would come of it, aside from the living person screaming and running away.

Funny, when I show up on the scene, it is usually the spooks who run away screaming. Come to think of it, that happens a lot on dates too........................